SALE OF A TROTTING FILLY

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 131, 5 June 1919, Page 4

SALE OF A TROTTING FILLY

A SUPREME COURT ACTION,

(BI TELE.RAPH.-^rRB.S ASSOCIATION.')

CHRISTCHURCH, 4th June.

An interesting case concerning the sale of the trotting filly Marie Tempest occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Elizabeth Craw, wife, of George Craw, of Linton/near Palmerston North, and tho defendant was Ben Jarden, trotting horse trainer, of Christchurch. Mr. A. F. Wright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. J. Gresson for the defendant.

It was claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that about Ist January. 1919, the defendant fraudulently represented that the filly was entered and'was eligible to start in the New Brighton Trotting Derby. That the representation was made with a view to inducing, the plaintiff to purchase the filly, as it was of little or no valuei to the plaintiff unless it was entered for the Derby. The price agreed upon was £400, with an additional £200 out of the filly's, first winnings, and the plaintiff paid a deposit of £100, and gave three post-dated chequ.es for £IQO each for the balance. It was alleged that plaintiff would not have agreed to the purchase but for the representation stated. But Marie Tempest was not eligible for the Derby, and had never been entered for it, and defendant knew that it was impossible at that time to enter ji.r; therefore, the plaintiff .asked for a rescission of thel agreement fpr sale ancl purchase, and fqr the return of the deposit, with interefit, and. the postdated cheques. The defence filed was a general denial of the allegations made. As further defences it was claimed that if the representations alleged were piijde, they were made in good faith and after proper inquiry, and also that the plaintiff purchased the filly on her own, judgment, and after due examination.

His Honour, in giving judgment, stat. Ed that before he could hold that fraud was committed, evidence of the most convincing character', must be tendered. Itwas not enough for him to have a, suspicion only. He was not satisfied that the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Craw was sufficient •to warrant him in coming to the conclusion that Jarden attempted to defraud them. In this case it was either a fraud or nothing. There could be no suggestion of innocent misrepresentation. Judgment would be given for the defend: ant, with costs.